Did the Flood really happen?

Science is not science when the basis is only beliefs. Again, origin sciences have only belief as a basis. Call it what you like.

Whatever you declare fiction is fiction then. No reasons needed. I see.

quote:

---

And the basis is not beliefs. There is no place for beliefs in science

---

I agree. So when all ages are based on a belief that nature on earth was the same, that is not real science.
When distances and sizes of stars are based on assuming time exists the same in all the universe, we know that the billions of years they cite are beliefs, and not real science. The criteria is whether claims and models are based on testing, observation, repetition, and factual evidence, it is not what you declare is a belief or not.

No. You read them. Then post a relevant part using a link as support.

The same nature in the past belief is not falsifiable.
Science does make declarations. In offering origin models as fact, they declare them to be valid. So can we go back and check the first life form? No. They look at this nature and how little lifeforms may act or evolve here. They have no capacity to go back and check if people recorded in history lived. They cannot go back and observe how fast trees grew. They just look at the present. They cannot go back and check what processes went on with isotopes. They look at processes that go on today. Basically their models are are 'what if' scenarios based on nature being the same (and there being no creation, since they use what exists now to model how it all came to exist)
There can be no denying it is belief based.

Read your links. Then post the relevant bit. Make some actual point.Looking at your link I see this in the first one."Dendrochronology operates on the principle that in temperate climates, like the southwestern United States, trees grow one ring every year."So this means, in case you missed it, that they operate on a same nature in the past belief for which they can offer no support, nor do they try.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

None of this has anything to do with what time is like in deep space.As for things in labs or about the solar system area (Mercury, etc) these are irrelevant to deep space.
As to observing laws today and seeing how small changes would mess things up, also irrelevant since the nature that would have changed was not this one but the former one, we would be the change.

Of course you are wrong and can't make a case.

I quoted from what you mistakenly claimed was either information or relevant. The basis for tree ring dating is assuming a same nature in the past. Period.

quote:

---

I don't have to make the case.

---

Great. Stay down then.

If the change was on earth we would not see it in deep space. If it was not this nature that changed, but a former nature, we would not see it.

quote:

---

Sure it is. All you'd have to do is show evidence of a changed nature.

​

Maybe you're confusing "not falsifiable" with "not false". It's true that you can't falsify something that is not false.

---

If you claim that belief in a same nature in the past is falsifiable, then show us how.

quote:

---

The models are observed to be valid - i.e. they're confirmed by the evidence

---

No. They are not. They rest only on beliefs.

quote:

---

Sure they can. They can look at trees living and dead. They can look at wood from trees that were cut down before any trees that are still living were alive. They can even look at fossil trees. We have a beautiful specimen in our local museum, polished like a gravestone and you can count the rings as if it was cut down yesterday.

---

Looking at a dead tree does not tell us how fast it used to grow. Seriously?

False. It is not based on any evidence. Science doesn't know either way. If I offered support for a different nature in the past it would not be using science since science does not know either way.

I admitted we do not know USING SCIENCE, either way.

No one can prove nature was different or the same using science, and you don't seem to accept proofs outside of science.Check.